Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 288 posts

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#151

Post by dTal »

jerf wrote: post #136
acituan wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> $17/yr in annual revenue per user Revenue per user is a very misleading way to evaluate the value when talking about a hyper-global operation. It is as useful as averaging the global price of a loaf of bread, which would be priced as $2-3 in the US but a few cents in a third world country. This is very applicable to ad revenue because ultimately ads are capturing the pricing levels of real economy, and bulk of the…

"Revenue per user is a very misleading way to evaluate the value when talking about a hyper-global operation." It doesn't matter, because there's no way to torture the data until "the amount of money that Facebook can afford to remit to its users for giving them their data" is going to be anything significant. They can't afford anything "per user" or any significant number of users. If it were, say, $500 dollars a ye…

Seems like this is putting the cart before the horse. Why should we care what Facebook can and can't afford? We don't owe them a business model. The point of this is to remit to the user the value that has been extracted from them. If Facebook cannot make money, i.e. contribute value, on top of that, then they are actually a drain on society surviving off negative externalities and should go.

Deciding how much a user's data is worth is an exercise for the reader, but I would certainly pay much more to avoid Facebook, than Facebook would pay to have me[0]. That's a red flag.

[0] - as would anyone who has ever added a Facebook domain to a Pi-Hole, the total cost of which likely exceeds Facebook's per-user revenue by your numbers.

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#152

Post by qeternity »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #103
qeternity wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re missing the point: when you go to a store, you hand them cash. When you go to a website, you hand them data, which they turn around and sell for cash. The data you give them is the payment for their product. Why else would Facebook invest billions into free products? I’m not shedding a tear for the mega corps, but people need to understand that companies will charge for products one way or another.

Many people think that "free" is a bad deal given the profits these companies make. Many people would prefer the more transparent pricing of "$5 per month" over the abstract "Whatever we can earn from your data, combined with everyone else's, by any means"

Many people may want this, but it’s likely a microscopic number in the grand scheme. Look at the length people go through to share Netflix, etc. Hell, I know how deep this rabbit hole goes and I hardly care.

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#153

Post by maerF0x0 »

ksdale wrote: post #131
maerF0x0 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people think that "free" is a bad deal given the profits these companies make. Many people would prefer the more transparent pricing of "$5 per month" over the abstract "Whatever we can earn from your data, combined with everyone else's, by any means"

I agree that transparent pricing would be an excellent option to have, but based on some quick googling, FB's net profit is only something like 25 cents per monthly active user per month (assuming I did the math correctly...). If FB gave people a rebate in the amount of their net profit, the whole transaction would round out to FB operating and people getting it for free, so it's not obviously that bad of a deal for…

But also if your point is true, I'd happily pay $3 a year for FB to retain all rights to the data they collect about me. My data is only worth $3 a year to others, but my privacy and peace of mind is worth more than that to me.

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#154

Post by jackcosgrove »

qeternity wrote: post #77
fragmede wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By adding payouts into the mix, companies become incentivized to not sell your data if it's not material to them. I go to the store, I buy something. Transaction over. The idea that the store tracks the shit out of me when I'm in the store is creepy enough. I can accept that ship has sailed since I'm in their store. That the store turns around and makes money off of that browsing data so Facebook can sell me ads for…

You’re missing the point: when you go to a store, you hand them cash. When you go to a website, you hand them data, which they turn around and sell for cash. The data you give them is the payment for their product. Why else would Facebook invest billions into free products? I’m not shedding a tear for the mega corps, but people need to understand that companies will charge for products one way or another.

So we're bartering with Google.

There are a couple problems with this that I can see. First, given that the transaction is not exchanged using dollars, we don't know if we are getting ripped off. One of the useful signals that money sends is uniform price discovery. Maybe we as consumers are leaving a lot of money on the table.

Second, it's a gray economy that escapes taxation. If Google can conduct a significant fraction of its business in an untaxed gray zone, while General Motors must account and pay all suppliers for the taxes they must pay to the government, then that's a market distortion in favor of Google. This is why bartering at large scales is illegal, unless of course you're an internet company.

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#155

Post by Lendal »

tomjen3 wrote: post #133
erentz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I see these breakdowns I think I’d pay $17 per year for Facebook without all of the ads and tracking and data mining and knowing I was just getting a good service optimized for its customers. Why not ban tracking and ad targeting and selling personal data, and force that business model to go extinct, and now they have to start charging for service and their users become actual customers.

That doesn't sound so bad on the surface, but it would mean that most of my friends aren't on facebook, or any other social network, which would mean that it is close to pointless.

Most of your friends probably pay for Netflix. The motivation for Netflix is to give you just enough quality to keep you paying every month.

For a free service like Facebook you the user have no expectation of quality because you're paying nothing. So Facebook's motivation is not to provide quality but to keep you engaged and clicking. They've discovered that best way to do that is to infuriate you and to radicalize you. This keeps you the user engaged which is what advertisers require, so that's what Facebook delivers.

This is great except that this is not a healthy arrangement for a democracy. To constantly have users given whatever amount of negativity and disinformation is necessary to keep them enraged and glued to their phones. That's what Yang is all about trying to fix.

So paying for Facebook changes the dynamic. Users will now demand quality. Facebook will have to change. If users discover that Facebook only delivers them misery, then they'll stop paying and Facebook loses revenue on both ends. The users collectively will have power to demand improvements. Facebook's algorithm will have to change in response to that new dynamic. Problem solved. (That's the hope.)

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#156

Post by TuringNYC »

dTal wrote: post #151
jerf wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Revenue per user is a very misleading way to evaluate the value when talking about a hyper-global operation." It doesn't matter, because there's no way to torture the data until "the amount of money that Facebook can afford to remit to its users for giving them their data" is going to be anything significant. They can't afford anything "per user" or any significant number of users. If it were, say, $500 dollars a ye…

Seems like this is putting the cart before the horse. Why should we care what Facebook can and can't afford? We don't owe them a business model. The point of this is to remit to the user the value that has been extracted from them. If Facebook cannot make money, i.e. contribute value, on top of that, then they are actually a drain on society surviving off negative externalities and should go. Deciding how much a user…

How would this work for, say, Google. Say they cut users a check and their business model no longer worked. Would they then charge for searches? Would users have the option to keep free searches in lieu of a payment?

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#157

Post by shrimpx »

awillen wrote: post #6

I'm all for people controlling their data and being fully informed of how it's being used, but I just don't understand the idea that you should be paid for the data that you give to companies when you choose to use their products. The payment that you get is the products. You don't get a check from Google, but you get to use Google, which is an incredibly useful tool. I like Yang, but I think he's barking up the wron…

The gap in your reasoning is the assumption that giving them your data is an exact and fair payment in exchange for using their service. We actually have no idea how much data is worth, because these companies have created a culture that simply takes data from you. There is no market. Isn’t that convenient for facebook and google?

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#159

Post by jerf »

dTal wrote: post #151
jerf wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Revenue per user is a very misleading way to evaluate the value when talking about a hyper-global operation." It doesn't matter, because there's no way to torture the data until "the amount of money that Facebook can afford to remit to its users for giving them their data" is going to be anything significant. They can't afford anything "per user" or any significant number of users. If it were, say, $500 dollars a ye…

Seems like this is putting the cart before the horse. Why should we care what Facebook can and can't afford? We don't owe them a business model. The point of this is to remit to the user the value that has been extracted from them. If Facebook cannot make money, i.e. contribute value, on top of that, then they are actually a drain on society surviving off negative externalities and should go. Deciding how much a user…

As I say in another comment, I'd be happy to put a punitive taxation level on this entire industry. But if we're going to talk about "paying users for their data", then from the very beginning the framing is being written in terms of what the companies can afford based on what they're making, and the whole conversation is going to be anchored in terms of what the companies make. The discussion won't be about internalizing externalities, it'll be about the users profit-sharing with the companies.

If you want to internal externalities, go for the tax. Probably an easier sell to the politicians.

Re: Andrew Yang's Data Dividend Project is pushing Big Tech to pay users for data

#160

Post by monadic2 »

kumarm wrote: post #10

Aren't companies already paying indirectly by providing free service? I am no fan of Facebook but I am using the service free of cost and in return company collects data for targeted advertising. Shouldn't this be more targeted at cable companies which collect a monthly fee and again sell your data? And may be forcing Big Tech to provide a paid alternative which doesn't use data collected?

It’s not cost-free, it’s transaction-free.
Post reply on HN